I found the press release and Abstract readily readable and easy to understand - it's in plain English, rather than an exercise in introverted scientific nomenclature. The way it should be. Hopefully many people without scientific backgrounds will at least get the gist of it.

I would still like to see a video, the full feature length 1/1000 of a second version ;p
____________FAQ's

Beyond the badges, which are nice, could GPUGrid.net set up a formal system for sharing these publications with the members who contributed the GPU time which makes articles like this one possible (e.g. an email address such as publications@gpugrid.net where users can personally request that an electronic copy be sent to them?)

I'd really like a PDF of "Kinetic characterization of the critical step in HIV-1 protease maturation" if that can be done.

And congratulations to the scientists for getting this important research published!

Beyond the badges, which are nice, could GPUGrid.net set up a formal system for sharing these publications with the members who contributed the GPU time which makes articles like this one possible (e.g. an email address such as publications@gpugrid.net where users can personally request that an electronic copy be sent to them?)

I'd really like a PDF of "Kinetic characterization of the critical step in HIV-1 protease maturation" if that can be done.

And congratulations to the scientists for getting this important research published!

Hi TarHeal. While we would like to make the publications freely available to the users, it is often up the the publication company as to whether that is allowable or not. We can get in legal trouble if we do it against their wishes. Many times they do not allow it, since much of their revenue comes from subscriptions or purchases of individual papers.

If you think, "But public money and my time volunteering paid for this research, and it should therefore be publicly available", then I 100% agree with you. There is currently a large debate in the scientific community over this exact topic. Many of us scientists believe that publicly funded research should be available to the public free-of-charge, for obvious reasons. They already paid for it. Some journals do in fact operate this way. The best example are the PLoS journals.

Sadly, public access is not the principal criteria most scientists use to decide in which journals to publish. Why? Scientists are often judged in grant and project proposals by the quality of their past publications. One of the principal ways in which past publication quality is judged is by the impact factor of the journals in which they publish. Journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS (among many others) have high impact factors. For a scientist wishing to win more money to perform more and better research, it is critical to publish in these journals. These journals also typically don't allow public access to the publication. Occasionally they do, but most of the time they don't. It is a vicious cycle.

Things are this way mainly for historical reasons, as many of the "best" journals gained their popularity in a time period where publishing and distribution costs were high (back when they had to print and deliver a physical copy of the journal). This has obviously changed drastically over the past two decades with the rise of the PDF document and the internet.

If you feel strongly about this subject, I urge you to contact your government representative about the issue, and also contact the publication companies as well. There are good arguments on both sides, but it's clear that things should change somehow. The more public attention this gets, the more quickly we can move to a better system.[/url]

The problem isn’t entirely with the publication system. Intellectually inaccessible research publications are not what crunchers want to read, so it doesn’t really matter if the papers are published with property rights. Most crunchers would struggle to understand most research publications, from any research area, let alone be able to analyse their significance within that narrow field of scientific research and understand the greater scientific or medical implications.

So links to the papers are fine, for those working within or close to the research, but for most crunchers, publications would be perplexing, rather than interesting.

It's down to the research team to reach out to the general public and make the research more accessible and interesting, especially to the crunching community.

Although there were big changes made to the GPUGrid site last year, better constructed research areas with improved background educational material would make the research more accessible. Presentations, more videos, and discussions would make it more interesting, and more interactive. Then the papers might be of more interest to crunchers.
____________FAQ's

Knowing a bit about Academic papers, and the review process, I wouldn't be surprised if the tasks for these papers often finish running at least a year, if not almost 2 years before the paper gets published. Even longer if the journal it is submitted to has a backlog of submissions. I mean after the numbers are crunched the scientists need to get the data into a presentable form, write/ polish the paper, then submit it for review, and then the waiting starts. I worked on a paper that was out for submission for 9 months before we were even contacted for acceptance.
____________

I think it's credit from that research, but it could be WU's completed or even steps - not that there would be much difference between either system in terms or rank or research %age/water molecule colour.
____________FAQ's

Knowing a bit about Academic papers, and the review process, I wouldn't be surprised if the tasks for these papers often finish running at least a year, if not almost 2 years before the paper gets published. Even longer if the journal it is submitted to has a backlog of submissions. I mean after the numbers are crunched the scientists need to get the data into a presentable form, write/ polish the paper, then submit it for review, and then the waiting starts. I worked on a paper that was out for submission for 9 months before we were even contacted for acceptance.

Thank you, i`am crunching only since a few months...that`s why i didn`t get a badge...